On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > I wish you were right about the rarity, but it's unfortunately something > > I have seen multiple times in the wild (and why I spent time optimizing > > the many-packs case for pack-objects). Unfortunately I don't know how > > often it actually comes up, because in theory running "git repack" > > cleans it up without further ado. But after these patches, not so much. > > It's good to know this case is real and I can start to fix it > (assuming that the other concern about readability will not stop this > series). > > I think I'll try to fix this without involving repack. pack-objects > can produce multiple packs, so if we have more than 16k pack files, we > produce one new pack per 16k old ones. I suspect that's going to be hard given the structure of the code. Could we perhaps just bump to an auxiliary storage in that case? I.e., allocate the final index number to mean "look in this other table", and then have another table of uint32 indices? That would mean we can behave as we did previously, but just use a little more memory in the uncommon >16k case. -Peff
